03-23-2008, 11:06 PM
<b>How does BJPâs leadership differ from Congress?</b>
Link
March 20, 2008
<i>'There is no reservation for the top slot in BJP'</i>
<b>L.K. ADVANI LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (LOK SABHA)</b>
The first and foremost difference between our two organisations is this: The Congress is dynastic, the BJP is democratic. There is a reservation policy for the top slot in the Congress. It is reserved in perpetuity for members of the Nehru family. Now look in contrast to the BJP.
In my party, leadership is not the birthright of any individual or family. I sometimes feel depressed that how brazenly an entire party has been appropriated and made into a family fiefdom and how slavishly Congressmen have resigned themselves to this appropriation. It is one of the saddest developments of Indian political evolution.
The three towering leaders from BJPâDr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee who founded the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951; Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who was the chief ideologue and guide of the Jan Sangh; and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, became leaders on the strength of their own personality. They did not belong to any big family, nor did they have any great inheritance that brought them to the top.
India has so far had six Congress prime ministers out of which three have belonged to the Nehru family. Of the others, the tenure of Lal Bahadur Shastri was tragically short. However, both in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, a conscious and sustained attempt has been made to emphasise that real power resides not at 7 Race Course Road but at 10 Janpath.
I used the word Kremlinisation in the context of the current Congress leadership when I criticised the present prime minister. I said this kind of situation prevailed only in the erstwhile Soviet Union. India is a democracy yet how is it that today 10 Janpath has become more important than 7 Race Course Road? It is this kind of Kremlinisation of Indian polity that makes me criticise a person whom I still hold in great esteem. But I did say this is the weakest prime minister India has ever had. I feel sympathy for the present prime minister. His predicament is his own making. The authority of the office of prime minister is enormous.
The Congress culture has brought âdynastyâ even into the nomenclature of government schemes, in terms of projecting who is a great man of this country. I had an occasion to talk about this in the Parliament while debating the Motion of Thanks to Presidentâs address. I said I was both bemused and disturbed when I went through the address to see that all the schemes and projects mentioned in it have been named after one single family. Look at the list: Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship, Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission... I said, Mr Prime Minister, hasnât India produced any other great men or women. Sixty years have passed and this country has produced people like Sardar Patel, Jaiprakash Narayan, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Annadurai, Morarji Desai... but not one of this strikes you, but only one family, only one dynasty? Mr Prime Minister, even a Narasimha Rao doesnât strike you? Dr Singh had no answer. The fact is that although he is the prime minister, he has only the title but no authority.
Another salient difference pertains to our contrasting approaches to coalition management. The credit of providing the first stable, successful and purposive coalition government goes to BJP and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. At one point we had over 24 parties in the NDA. But we scrupulously followed the coalition dharma. Indeed the very term coalition dharma is the BJPâs contribution to the lexicon of Indian democracy.
Contrast this with the way the Congress has been managing the United Progressive Alliance and its relations with the Left Front that provide crucial support to the Government. There is no mutual trust, no cohesive vision to a larger national goal. In the NDAâs common minimum programme, we did not include some of the items we were very particular about. If our party strength has increased from two to 190, one major factor was our campaign against pseudo-secularism. Crores of people of this country regard a particular place as Ram Janmabhoomi, the birth place of Rama, and if they want to construct a temple there, whatâs wrong? Ayodhya brought us to power. But coalition politics has its compulsions. A coalition can be formed only when there is an agreed programme. In agreeing to that programme, we left aside Ayodhya, our desire to have Article 370 scrapped, and our demand for a uniform civil code in the country.
Through a process of dialogue and persuasion, the allies agreed to our commitment to India as a nuclear weapon power. When they agreed we added that to our common minimum programme and within two months had the Pokhran II explosion. But they (Congress) have not even mentioned the nuclear treaty in their common minimum programme. And the prime minister goes on saying, the deal is non-negotiable. If the Left doesnât agree with it, he says in a newspaper interview, let them go. This is not coalition dharma. When a majority of MPs are not in favour, why are you pursuing it?
Even on national security, our approach isâlet the terrorists know that this is the leadership whose attitude towards terrorism is of zero tolerance. The Agra Summit collapsed because we refused to succumb to Musharraf. He didnât want to include his commitment to ending cross-border terrorism in the joint statement. I was criticised for that though it was a decision taken by the entire cabinet on security.
BJP represents the future of India whereas the Congress, which was once a common platform of great national leaders, represents much of what has gone wrong in Indiaâs recent past. In leadership qualities IQ may be important but EQ i.e. emotional quotient is even more important. And still more important are the moral quotient and spiritual quotient. It is in this respect that there is a difference between the leadership of the Congress and the leadership of the BJP.
<b>Discussion
Q. In the BJP there is a Double A dynastyâAtal and Advani. During the past 30 years, the party could not think beyond the two.</b>
Advani: In our party there isnât any kind of dictatorship. We have interaction with all and if the party feels that Advani has done something wrong, Advani has to pay for it and he has paid for it.
<b>Q. What would you protectâ democracy or secularismâwhen a contradiction occurs like it did in Gujarat?</b>
Advani: There is no contradiction. I remember understanding the meaning of secularism from Golwalkar. He said Indian polity has never accepted theocracy and that it was ironical that the government, without much thought, has accepted the symbol of Ashokaâs Buddhist rule as a national symbol. I am of the view, that criticising the emblem is wrong. Once having accepted Jan gan man as the national anthem, there should be no debate on whether it should have been Vandematram. Secularism is part of our structure, it comes naturally to us.
<b>Q. What is the BJPâs appeal for young Indians who are educated, informed and smart?</b>
Advani: My biggest complaint against the Congress is that as far as security is concerned, the party interest matters more than national interest. The government refuses to honour the Supreme Court verdict on Afzal Guru. Votebank politics has distorted politics. The youth can contribute a lot here.
<b>Q. During the Kandahar hijack, militants were released. Do you really mean to fight terrorists or is it just an electoral strategy?</b>
Advani: Agra failed because we intended to fight terrorists. As for the hijack, I had the limitation of being part of the government. It was felt by various parties that the passengers should be rescued.
For full coverage of conclave log on to http://www.indiatodayconclave.com/
Link
March 20, 2008
<i>'There is no reservation for the top slot in BJP'</i>
<b>L.K. ADVANI LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (LOK SABHA)</b>
The first and foremost difference between our two organisations is this: The Congress is dynastic, the BJP is democratic. There is a reservation policy for the top slot in the Congress. It is reserved in perpetuity for members of the Nehru family. Now look in contrast to the BJP.
In my party, leadership is not the birthright of any individual or family. I sometimes feel depressed that how brazenly an entire party has been appropriated and made into a family fiefdom and how slavishly Congressmen have resigned themselves to this appropriation. It is one of the saddest developments of Indian political evolution.
The three towering leaders from BJPâDr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee who founded the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951; Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who was the chief ideologue and guide of the Jan Sangh; and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, became leaders on the strength of their own personality. They did not belong to any big family, nor did they have any great inheritance that brought them to the top.
India has so far had six Congress prime ministers out of which three have belonged to the Nehru family. Of the others, the tenure of Lal Bahadur Shastri was tragically short. However, both in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, a conscious and sustained attempt has been made to emphasise that real power resides not at 7 Race Course Road but at 10 Janpath.
I used the word Kremlinisation in the context of the current Congress leadership when I criticised the present prime minister. I said this kind of situation prevailed only in the erstwhile Soviet Union. India is a democracy yet how is it that today 10 Janpath has become more important than 7 Race Course Road? It is this kind of Kremlinisation of Indian polity that makes me criticise a person whom I still hold in great esteem. But I did say this is the weakest prime minister India has ever had. I feel sympathy for the present prime minister. His predicament is his own making. The authority of the office of prime minister is enormous.
The Congress culture has brought âdynastyâ even into the nomenclature of government schemes, in terms of projecting who is a great man of this country. I had an occasion to talk about this in the Parliament while debating the Motion of Thanks to Presidentâs address. I said I was both bemused and disturbed when I went through the address to see that all the schemes and projects mentioned in it have been named after one single family. Look at the list: Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship, Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission... I said, Mr Prime Minister, hasnât India produced any other great men or women. Sixty years have passed and this country has produced people like Sardar Patel, Jaiprakash Narayan, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Annadurai, Morarji Desai... but not one of this strikes you, but only one family, only one dynasty? Mr Prime Minister, even a Narasimha Rao doesnât strike you? Dr Singh had no answer. The fact is that although he is the prime minister, he has only the title but no authority.
Another salient difference pertains to our contrasting approaches to coalition management. The credit of providing the first stable, successful and purposive coalition government goes to BJP and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. At one point we had over 24 parties in the NDA. But we scrupulously followed the coalition dharma. Indeed the very term coalition dharma is the BJPâs contribution to the lexicon of Indian democracy.
Contrast this with the way the Congress has been managing the United Progressive Alliance and its relations with the Left Front that provide crucial support to the Government. There is no mutual trust, no cohesive vision to a larger national goal. In the NDAâs common minimum programme, we did not include some of the items we were very particular about. If our party strength has increased from two to 190, one major factor was our campaign against pseudo-secularism. Crores of people of this country regard a particular place as Ram Janmabhoomi, the birth place of Rama, and if they want to construct a temple there, whatâs wrong? Ayodhya brought us to power. But coalition politics has its compulsions. A coalition can be formed only when there is an agreed programme. In agreeing to that programme, we left aside Ayodhya, our desire to have Article 370 scrapped, and our demand for a uniform civil code in the country.
Through a process of dialogue and persuasion, the allies agreed to our commitment to India as a nuclear weapon power. When they agreed we added that to our common minimum programme and within two months had the Pokhran II explosion. But they (Congress) have not even mentioned the nuclear treaty in their common minimum programme. And the prime minister goes on saying, the deal is non-negotiable. If the Left doesnât agree with it, he says in a newspaper interview, let them go. This is not coalition dharma. When a majority of MPs are not in favour, why are you pursuing it?
Even on national security, our approach isâlet the terrorists know that this is the leadership whose attitude towards terrorism is of zero tolerance. The Agra Summit collapsed because we refused to succumb to Musharraf. He didnât want to include his commitment to ending cross-border terrorism in the joint statement. I was criticised for that though it was a decision taken by the entire cabinet on security.
BJP represents the future of India whereas the Congress, which was once a common platform of great national leaders, represents much of what has gone wrong in Indiaâs recent past. In leadership qualities IQ may be important but EQ i.e. emotional quotient is even more important. And still more important are the moral quotient and spiritual quotient. It is in this respect that there is a difference between the leadership of the Congress and the leadership of the BJP.
<b>Discussion
Q. In the BJP there is a Double A dynastyâAtal and Advani. During the past 30 years, the party could not think beyond the two.</b>
Advani: In our party there isnât any kind of dictatorship. We have interaction with all and if the party feels that Advani has done something wrong, Advani has to pay for it and he has paid for it.
<b>Q. What would you protectâ democracy or secularismâwhen a contradiction occurs like it did in Gujarat?</b>
Advani: There is no contradiction. I remember understanding the meaning of secularism from Golwalkar. He said Indian polity has never accepted theocracy and that it was ironical that the government, without much thought, has accepted the symbol of Ashokaâs Buddhist rule as a national symbol. I am of the view, that criticising the emblem is wrong. Once having accepted Jan gan man as the national anthem, there should be no debate on whether it should have been Vandematram. Secularism is part of our structure, it comes naturally to us.
<b>Q. What is the BJPâs appeal for young Indians who are educated, informed and smart?</b>
Advani: My biggest complaint against the Congress is that as far as security is concerned, the party interest matters more than national interest. The government refuses to honour the Supreme Court verdict on Afzal Guru. Votebank politics has distorted politics. The youth can contribute a lot here.
<b>Q. During the Kandahar hijack, militants were released. Do you really mean to fight terrorists or is it just an electoral strategy?</b>
Advani: Agra failed because we intended to fight terrorists. As for the hijack, I had the limitation of being part of the government. It was felt by various parties that the passengers should be rescued.
For full coverage of conclave log on to http://www.indiatodayconclave.com/